The debate "What is objective morality" was started by
May 23, 2015, 7:49 pm.
5 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 1 person is on the disagree side.
There needs to be more votes to see what the common perception is.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
PsychDave posted 2 arguments, soullesschicken posted 2 arguments, Sosocratese posted 1 argument, I_Voyager posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
soullesschicken, PsychDave, Sosocratese, I_Voyager and 1 visitor agree.
I just want to add a couple thoughts on the relationship between objective morality and universal morality. Partially because Psychdave mentioned me and made me feel special.
I think you could divide objective morality from universal morality. Consider physics... The principles of physics appear to be the same everywhere. But this doesn't mean that every physical state is the same. There is a whole threshold of physical possibilities which are running through in different ways given the unique conditions of any given point in spacetime.
Similarly, there may be a number of objective moral principles which are the same everywhere, but which play through different given any number of different conditions. There could be a "human morality" which, if fully explained, would explain every possible moral situation involving every possible human. This is not truly moral subjectivism since the morals are not wholly reliant on the subject to give it value, but finds itself in the actionable relationship between subjects given the conditions of reality which surrounds them.
There would be here no specific universal morality, like "lying is always wrong". Merely universal moral thresholds, like "lying is always wrong whenever lying is wrong.
Psychdave explained it well. I'll just put it in my own words too.
Objective morality is the idea that moral actions are right or wrong based on the action alone. There exists a independent measure of right and wrong by which actions are judged. So lying is wrong regardless of circumstances, culture, time, etc... It just is wrong because the act itself is wrong. The theories usually contain some way of finding, or defining these measures by which to judge moral actions. Note that objective morality is sometimes referred to moral universalism.
As psychdave has pointed out it is used a lot in theological arguments. However, there are other moral theories of this nature. The most notably is probably the categorical imperative by Kant.
No problem. There may be more to it (I may have oversimplified it) but philosophy is not a topic I am terribly knowledgeable. If I missed anything important, I_voyager or Sosocratese are both more knowledgeable than I.
Objective morality is the idea that there is moral right and wrong independent of personal experience. Basically there is a universal right and wrong that doesn't depend on what people believe. Religiously it would be what God says is right and wrong because no matter what anyone says or does, those things are still right and wrong.